Lord Drayson: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Dr John Reid) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce that I have reappointed Dr Peter Knight and Mr Robert Burgin as members of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a second three-year term, commencing March 2007. The reappointments have been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to public bodies.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	We are today launching the new Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).
	The centre is a world first and will play a decisive part, with police forces, offender managers, children's services and other stakeholders, in protecting children, young people, families and society from paedophiles and sex offenders—in particular, from those who use the internet and other new technologies in the sexual exploitation of children.
	The Government are committed both to protecting children and tackling the paedophiles who seek to abuse them. We also want to make the internet safe for young people to use. Today's children are sophisticated users of mobile phones and the internet and protecting them in this environment needs an effective response.
	We have shown that much progress can be made by working in partnerships which involve law enforcement, the internet and communications industry, child protection organisations and government. The Home Secretary's Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet has been instrumental in forging these partnerships and in making the case for and supporting the development of CEOP. CEOP will deliver a truly multi-agency response to the sexual exploitation of children. Nowhere else in the world have the public, private and voluntary sectors come together in such a way to tackle sex offenders and protect children. The centre will be built around three core faculties: intelligence, operations and harm reduction. It will deliver a range of functions designed to: empower children and parents through information and education; protect young people through better use of intelligence; and ensure the effective management of offenders. The centre will work closely with law enforcement and partner organisations in other countries in order to tackle these issues at international level.
	The centre has initially recruited around 70 staff and will be based in London. It will have an annual budget of nearly £5 million and will generate additional support from other sectors. The centre is formally part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency but will be operationally autonomous with a separate budget.
	In creating CEOP we are sending a clear message to children and parents that UK law enforcement is committed and able to work with them and the industry to protect children in the digital environment. The creation of the centre makes it clear to paedophiles and sex offenders that we are determined to build on recent successes in identifying them and disrupting and preventing their offending.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Administrative Court handed down its judgment on 12 April 2006 in the first review of a control order under Section 3 (10) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). The court upheld the control order, but declared that the review procedure was incompatible with Article 6 (Right to a Fair Hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
	I do not accept this judgment. In my view the 2005 Act is fully ECHR compliant and contains rigorous safeguards to protect the rights of the individual, including judicial oversight and reporting and reviewing requirements. Accordingly, I am appealing the decision.
	In the interim, the ruling does not limit the operation of the Act. I have not revoked either the control order which was the subject of this review or any of the other control orders currently in force on the back of this judgment. Nor will the judgment prevent me making control orders on suspected terrorists where I consider it necessary to do so in the interests of national security in future.
	In the Government's view, control orders are the best way of addressing the continuing threat posed by suspected terrorists who cannot currently be prosecuted or, in respect of foreign nationals, removed from the UK. It is my firm belief that the 2005 Act strikes the right balance between safeguarding society and safeguarding the rights of the individual.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have decided reform is needed to the arrangements under which state compensation is paid for miscarriages of justice. The purpose of the reforms, which include some important changes being made by the assessor, with my full support, is to modernise and simplify the system and to bring about a better balance with the treatment of victims of crime. In summary, with immediate effect:
	I will not consider any new applications under the discretionary scheme for compensation; I will introduce time limits for all applications;
	the assessor will assess compensation in respect of applicants' legal costs by reference to the level of fees paid for legal help pursuant to the Community Legal Service (Funding) Order 2000;
	the assessor will take greater account of applicants' convictions when deciding the level of awards for non-pecuniary loss; and
	the assessor will take greater account of conduct by applicants which contributed to the circumstances leading to the miscarriage of justice.
	I shall, when suitable legislative opportunity arises, bring forward legislation to:
	enable the assessor to make deductions from the pecuniary element of the award because of criminal convictions of the applicant;
	provide for an upper limit on the overall amount of compensation and as regards compensation for loss of earnings; and
	enable the assessor to reduce an award of compensation to zero, in exceptional cases, on account of criminal convictions and/or contributory conduct of the applicant.
	A single scheme
	Currently I pay compensation under two schemes: a statutory scheme under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and a discretionary scheme which operates on the basis of the Statement made by the then Home Secretary to the House of Commons on 29 November 1985.
	The existence of the second, discretionary scheme is confusing and anomalous. The scheme predates the introduction of international standards and agreements in this area and addresses cases beyond the UK's international obligations. The scheme currently costs over £2 million a year to operate but benefits only between five and 10 applicants. I do not believe that the discretionary scheme can continue to be justified.
	Applications for compensation already received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform will continue to be considered both under Section 133 and the discretionary scheme. However, with immediate effect I will entertain new applications for compensation only under the statutory scheme.
	Other immediate changes
	Claims for compensation have increased in complexity in recent years and may drag on for several years. This reflects the absence of time limits on the process, as would be expected if the case had come to court, lack of clarity about the maximum amounts payable, and the absence of limits on legal fees, which are reimbursed at private work rates. Currently, applicants are invited simply to submit their claims for compensation and to detail their financial loss. Compensation payments for miscarriages of justice have increased sharply over the past few years and are now running at an average of well over £250,000, with more than 10 per cent of that amount also paid in legal fees. In contrast, no legal costs are payable under the scheme for victims of crime, and the average amount received by each victim is less than one-fiftieth of what is paid to those eligible under the miscarriages of justice scheme.
	The level of compensation to be awarded to those eligible for compensation is determined by an independent assessor.
	The assessor already takes some account of criminal convictions when deciding on the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss, and in assessing the amount of compensation he is able to take account of conduct by the applicant which contributed to the circumstances leading to the wrongful conviction. Typically, such deductions have been modest, ranging in most cases from around 5 to no more than 20 per cent. In contrast, reductions in payments to victims of crime are much higher, ranging up to 100 per cent in serious cases.
	The assessor has decided that, with immediate effect, he will take greater account of the criminal convictions of applicants when determining the level of non-pecuniary compensation to be awarded. He will also, with immediate effect, take greater account of conduct by the applicant which contributed to the circumstances leading to the miscarriage of justice. These changes will apply to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) which are currently awaiting a decision from the assessor on the amount of compensation, as well as to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) where the question of eligibility for compensation is being considered by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, and to all new cases for compensation under the statutory scheme received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
	The assessor has also decided that legal costs in relation to applications for compensation will, with immediate effect, be paid by reference to the fees for publicly funded civil cases as provided for in the legal help contained in the Community Legal Service (Funding) Order 2000. This change will apply to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) which are currently awaiting a decision from the assessor on the amount of compensation, as well as to all existing cases (both under the statutory and discretionary scheme) where the question of eligibility for compensation is being considered by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, and to all new cases for compensation under the statutory scheme received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. However, in the case of applications already received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform or already under consideration by the assessor, the change will apply only in relation to legal costs incurred after today and compensation in respect of legal costs before today will be paid on the same basis as before.
	I am also asking all those dealing with applications for compensation, including my officials, to deal with them much more quickly than has been the case in the past. I propose that all supporting details of the amount of compensation being sought should be with the assessor within six months of notification of eligibility, and I welcome the assessor's decision to make final assessments within 12 months on the basis of the information to hand. I believe that the clarifications and simplifications introduced should enable that target to be met.
	Legislative plans
	Currently, Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 limits deductions from compensation awards in respect of convictions to the amount awarded to the applicant for non-pecuniary loss. I intend to bring forward legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises to empower the assessor in appropriate cases to make deductions because of convictions from the whole of the award—including pecuniary loss—and to provide that in exceptional cases the amount of compensation may be reduced to nil because of criminal convictions and/or contributory conduct by the applicant.
	I also intend to bring forward legislation to provide that the maximum amount of compensation payable under the statutory scheme should be £500,000 and that the maximum compensation payable in respect of loss of earnings should be one and a half times the gross average industrial earnings.
	Finally, I have embarked on an urgent review, with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, of the statutory test the Court of Appeal must use in deciding whether to quash a conviction. I propose to examine whether and—if so—to what extent an error in the trial process necessarily means a miscarriage of justice. I will consult upon the results of this review as soon as possible. If a change in the law is needed, we will propose it.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has also decided, with immediate effect, not to consider any new applications under the discretionary compensation scheme in Northern Ireland. He also intends to have the legislation I will bring forward on compensation extended to Northern Ireland. He is now raising with assessors in Northern Ireland the other changes for the treatment of claims by Lord Brennan. In association with my own review, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also consider the need for changes to the test for the quashing of convictions by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.